Here is probably a good example why I personally think that Airborne doctrine is perhaps the most flexible doctrine in the entire game currently.

Me as Airborne doc against Vantury as SE doc.. he is a very old Bk Mod player btw, as some of you might already know.

I noticed Quad AA emplacements have so much HP btw, and I honestly don't understand how could anyone say that the Riflemen squad is useless at all, although that they often reach veterancy level.3 quite easily, only thanks to rifle grenades... And the Quad AA half-track survived direct Shreck hits several times here! Not to mention about my ultimate/super AT team for sure, which is capable of frontally killing the Tiger Ace just with 6 rockets as you might have seen on another recent video of mine, talking about that other 3vs3 video on Discord (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2220) as you may not even need any airplanes in order to get rid of the opponent heavy tanks.

Regarding rifle squads:You played on a small urban map. So in many cases you didnt have to fight at max distances and rifle nades gave you an advantage. It doesnt change the fact that rifles are more like stgs with a rate of fire slower than bolt rifles.Also US can outnumber PE, but not so easily WH. He might have done better with vehicles vs us in early game.

And its not that i hadnt max vet rifles myself with over 50 inf kills. But still they died in a second vs Gebirgs when i was just one second unaware (unveted gebirgs vs max vet rifles). It happend in about 1 second.

And you need micro, a good map and rifle nades where you can use them decently when you can jump from cover to cover and shooting them over distances. But its additional micro and lots of attention for a single squad when you have to keep using them this way.

My max veted volks where more or less "self reliant". Cover+ lmg and they did fine for a while. Just retreat early enough when enemie gets close. But i could easily handle several of them just putting them from cover to cover. Try this with 3 rifle squads each of them using rifle nades all the time. Its something whole different.

6 rockets are nothing compared to the total amount of handheld AT weapons you could have as US faction.. in fact, I can remember I once had 2 AT teams as Airborne each with 6 rockets in 1 hour and a half game in the past.. in addition to the regular AT squads from Barracks as well as Rangers. You surely can't have all at the same time usually, but you definitely COULD. One of my squads reached veterancy level.4 with more than 7 tank kills including heavy Axis tanks. And another was veterancy level.2 or 3 but it died later. Axis obviously can't have that insane amount of handheld AT weapons anyhow!

I also wanted to show how practically the Shreck isn't any better than Bazookas against vehicles, unlike some people often claim otherwise! Did you see how the Quad AA half-track survived 2 Shreck hits? So, I don't understand why would some people come here and complain about Puma surviving Recoilles Rifle or Bazookas... That's my point.

And those were actually not 6 rockets.. but 4 Bazookas and 2 Recoilles rifles to be exact, the often so called "useless" Recoiless rifles... You see what I mean? I clearly didn't intend to accuse balance at any possible point based on this particular game. As I was just speaking generally. I only wanted to refute some of the false statements by other players here who would usually claim saying "useless" Riflemen or useless Allied handheld AT weapons, etc. The reality has to prevail... So there is no highness of any kind here.

I think the reason for airborne's "high flexibility" is the same as why I think the new def doctrine will not accomplish the objective it's trying to get. I mentioned airborne's flexibility a few times in scattered posts. It's the same reason RAF is so strong too. Which reminds me I should/could finish writing the cases I said I'd do... but doesn't seem like anyone wants to read it/comment it anyways like the rest of my posts. Instead we focus on micro cases like rockets and the cost of grenadiers... solves nothing no matter how much it's tweaked if the fundamentals are not addressed:-play big maps-unify doctrine structures-play in teams (given doctrine strutures are specialized over well-rounded)

I am interested. But was waiting for You, to wrap it in a total and more compromised for a conversation manner. However for now, it looks like, the answer is to whatever could be said there, lays in unfinished part and will bring up only more confusion, since matter is complicated but reasonable.

Which reminds me I should/could finish writing the cases I said I'd do... but doesn't seem like anyone wants to read it/comment it anyways like the rest of my posts.

I'm very interested on that post Kwok. LIke idliketoplaybetter; Make your points in an elaborated way and give us your reasons for the things that won't work. I know it's gonna take some time, but in the end it will bring more clarity about that topic.

This is off-topic, but to be honest I get tired writing posts because I write them, people hardly respond or discuss, more often people agree too. But when it comes to actually playing... no one does it. For example, I say play big maps and most people agree that it is the best way to play but i go online and people don't play big maps. I say to play particular counters a certain way and no one responds with anything back, assuming the counter actually works. My post is practically ignored to the "balance discussion" when solutions for problems are clearly there. I post replays where I am in situations people think are impossible and unwinnable, no one watches or comments on the replay. Why go in the effort in writing? I made a post about doctrines (which I've discussed with people before in private, some can testify) because I thought people were finally ready to have a discussion about it based on all those proposed doctrine reworks. It seemed like no one understood the point I was making and either didn't respond or focused on really minor details of units. I talk about game design, the response is more personal vision lobbying.

Just before I get to comment on Kwok's point, which might be off-topic but still valuable point indeed... I only wanted to address a specific matter here.. it's particularly how some people here actually choose to ignore the reality! And sometimes these kind of people would just see no issues at all for some unit as an example to be more expensive than the other one, only because this unit simply belongs to Axis, so it has to be more expensive! Or that the other unit is belonging to Allied, therefore it should be blindly less expensive. While paying little to no attention to the actual combat value of this unit in the game!

Live example, is Shrecks vs Bazookas.. specifically after the recent improvements for Bazookas over the recent previous patches.I honestly see absolutely no justification of why would the Shreck ever cost more than the Bazooka anymore. I mean; what can the Shreck do any better that the Zooka can't do on the other hand? Practically as I mentioned, both sometimes struggle to kill vehicles. Zooka can bounce off Panthers, but still. How is the Shreck any better here? I don't get it.. cuz the Shreck can also bounce off Jumbos in return. Zooka can bounce off Tigers, well.. but the Shreck could also bounce off Churchill, Pershing, and Comet. Someone might say: "but the Shreck has higher penetration against Shermans than Zookas against Pz.IV the other way" Well, but Shermans can survive more hits thanks to over-repairing and sandbags! SO it's still not an advantage. My point is, combat wise... Both the Shreck and the Zooka are typically equal. Except that Zookas are cheaper, and also available in higher numbers. And I think that's why Axis now actually have harder times compared to the Allied on the other hand after implementing 2s aim time for handheld AT weapons.

Anyway, regarding Kwok's points. I have been actually watching all the posted replays here on this forum section.. regardless if they were posted by you or anybody else. And I must say that I totally agree that playing bigger maps can definitely help... And specifically for that, I guess I have some good news for you. Remember the 3vs3 extra large map called "Blija" created by Neroleon? This map perfectly fits the concept of playing bigger maps I think! I just talked to Playmobill about it once again, he actually wanted to include it earlier within the MapPack2 but then he figured out that a lot of necessary adjustments are firstly required in order to be a fully working map. Hopefully he can make it this time as he told me he would try to add it as a new map within the upcoming MapPack2 fix files! I am just afraid he lacks free time... If you have enough knowledge on the world builder, you could also provide some help to us and therefore speed up the whole process, in case u have the time for sure.

Tiger1996 wrote:And specifically for that, I guess I have some good news for you. Remember the 3vs3 extra large map called "Blija" created by Neroleon? This map perfectly fits the concept of playing bigger maps I think!

I think this sort of belongs to what kwok writes here:

kwok wrote:It seemed like no one understood the point I was making and either didn't respond or focused on really minor details of units.

The big maps are already there, but people don't play them, so how will this one map change anything? It will just expand the list of "big maps suitable for BK which noone plays" - I would bet it will end up that way for real.So I can understand kwok on this one.

I never said that this map in particular is going to change the fact that people like to play on smaller maps though...Nonetheless, I believe this map in particular is a very special one. And actually it was Kwok the first one who suggested it back then as he also described it being probably the most perfect example of a big decent map that is well suited.

But to be more specific regarding the issue of players not willing to play on bigger maps.. it's a matter of what they are more used to!When you join some players who are hosting a small map and then u try to ask them for a bigger one... They would often respond: "but i am not used to play on bigger maps" however, this particular map we are talking about is a beautiful extra large one with open terrain on the sides and a big city in the center, as it's more like a 4vs4 map although it's still 3vs3, so when people start to play it.. they would be already playing a big map without having to switch to a 4vs4 map while closing 2 slots for a 3vs3 game or whatever.So it can help! It will be surely a great addition. I think it would quickly turn into being one of the most played maps ever!

Tiger1996 wrote:beautiful extra large one with open terrain on the sides and a big city in the center, as it's more like a 4vs4 map although it's still 3vs3

and how will that help when people are like:

Tiger1996 wrote:"but i am not used to play on bigger maps"

It is not about shortage of bigger maps - they are already available, it is about people being lazy to try something new and then they come here and complain about balance and when you ask them what setup they played, the response is "small map 1v1". I am getting tired of such posts...when you buy a Porsche which can drive 240 km/h on a highway you cannot complain to the manufacturer that you cannot drive with it 240km/h on a stupid dirt road somewhere in a middle of a forest - it is simply not made for that.

[rant]When we say big maps are the way to play BK, it is for a reason - one of the advantages of PE in early game is their high mobility thanks to which they can cap a lot of teritorry fast - this advantage is from most part negated on small maps because infantry is in a blink of an eye everywhere anyway. But on a bigger map PE can cap teritorry faster and thus a bit later in the game have some resource advantage and from that presumption is built the balance for PE in later game but since this mechanics is broken from the start by stupid map selection, PE can have trouble later on.One of the most played doctrines are the ones with planes (I am not saying that planes are the only reason; but maybe one of them) planes they are sort of like arty that delivers the whole payload way faster and thus leaves less reaction time for opponent. On smaller maps this effect is even stronger because AA units that the counter simply don't have time to shoot the planes down unless you build a ton of them - on bigger maps AAs are more effective even in smaller numbers so for Axis protecting their heavy and slow tanks from airstrikes is easier.And there is more but why should people even try? They are not used to play on bigger maps [/rant]I don't aim this at you, it is just my pissed-off rant in general so no need to take any of it personally.

A big part of what you said is actually true. And I know that you are speaking generally, but.. in case you were talking about this particular 1vs1 replay here... Then I would probably have to clarify - just in case - that there are no balance judgments of any sort based on this particular game. However, I addressed some global issues such as the Shrecks vs Zookas comparison as an example. Out of which are some matters that are not really related to bigger or smaller maps. Either ways, it's maybe something more specific or perhaps just "minor details" as Kwok may like to call it, though I would have to disagree with him if he really believes that subjects alike are completely insignificant, as I believe they are still significant for sure.. though they might be less significant, as I would only agree there. I also just wanted to illustrate how some statements here are often misleading and very untrue... So I clearly just wanted to explain how most of these statements are false and in fact have nothing to do with the game reality. I mean that most of these allegedly claimed "useless" units are actually far from it! So, I think we both agree at the end on very basic grounds.

1. Okay I'll finish the post at the request of friends. It'll probably take me a few more days cuz I'm away traveling these next few days.

2. Markr's breath is wasted. Even in your concern about "super AT teams" that IS an issue of bigger maps. Your complaint is the efficiency of handheld AT (which was severely nerfed over the past patches, a move I consider an overall huge buff for the vehicle-focused axis, and was met with a LOOONNGG shitstorm from both sides of axis/allies lobbyists before people got use to it) still is a question of big maps because tight corners and the freedom to get from engagement to safety is extremely prevalent in a map like semois (that's the name of this map I think). Bigger maps REALLY buff the efficiency of vehicles. Reducing the AT capability for airborne anymore will make it a suboptimal RAF. Try using "super AT soldiers" in an open map instead of closed and it's an entirely different game. Unless doctrines change fundamentally and big maps are played, your complaints will always exist in some form. Not even talking about stylistic tendencies per player either... some players just enjoy doing the same thing on every map instead of adapting to the environment let alone other player...

3. To be honest I'd rather work on coh2 than out any effort into bk, unless I see a real change in the community. [rant] do you know what's one of the most frustrating things about conversations like these? Again people have come and agreed with me on big maps should be played... but when I get online and I start up games, refuse to start games on small maps and keep asking to "adjust to my settings" I get bitched at for being unreasonable. While other players bitch and refuse to start or leave because they don't get their: annilhilate (VP is a FINE and mostly balanced game mode that encourages non-camping that people allegedly hate), standard res, small map of practiced choice... I'm usually the one being called the nuisance by asking for ANY bigger map. Because markr is right, there are PLENTY of big maps available already.. just because I know how and have given out new maps that I've personally adjusted to be "bigger" to a few people... why should I put the effort into helping out people who won't even use what they have already. Do you remember what I called my first "big map" topic? "An independent from developer solution" (or something like that... so sorry for not wanting to actively help anymore and wanting to work on coh2 things.[/rant]

I disagree that VP games dis-encourage camping, in fact.. it encourages camping in a very big scale around the victory points themselves. But I wouldn't deny that they could be still fun to play sometimes... Anyway, yes; implementing the 2s aim time for handheld AT weapons while improving the efficiency of HE rounds was something I myself always wanted to happen for sure!However, as I already said, I can see no real issue here actually. As I only wanted to refute those who falsely claim that Allied handheld AT weapons are weaker. Since that Shrecks are obviously not much better anyhow. Regardless though, I don't think there is really a need for any help anyways.. just thought I should let you know since that this map was first suggested by you in the first place, so I decided to see if u would maybe want to provide your ideas about it. But well, if I were you; I would honestly see little reasons to stay here at all if I am not willing to actively participate anymore! Don't get me wrong. But that's just what I would do IF I were in ur place... As I don't often like to stay where I don't like to belong anymore, that's just me though.

Warhawks97 wrote:To get a few things staight? How many squads required to get 4x M6A3C zooks and 2 rl rifle?Must be somewhere arround 1600 MP right +-? What if a lucky shell kills it? ALL AT dead.

Yeah. really bad balance when such an investment kills stupid tank drivers.What happens on bigger maps?`You cant respond at all with a single inf squad as only anti tank unit.

Yes, such ultimate/super AT squads are not OP at all.. so there is no bad balance here. And I never claimed they are OP at any possible point... Since they can die easily to just a single HE round and they take 2 seconds to aim. And on bigger maps they would have little potential for sure.

Warhawks97 wrote:Schrecks have way better pen and damage. How cant it be an advantage?

However, my whole point here is all surrounding this particular statement. Stats wise... Shreck is better, but combat wise.. they are pretty much the same! Both can sometimes struggle to kill light vehicles.I mean, the Shreck supposedly has better pen chance. But for example; would this "better" pen chance really allow you to penetrate the Jumbo more effectively than the Zooka would penetrate the Panther on the other hand? Not really.Because the Jumbo after all has better armor! So the better penetration chances of the Shreck counts to nothing at the end. As it's still struggling against heavy Allied tanks, just the same way how Zookas might struggle against heavy Axis tanks. Except that the Shreck is also more expensive and available in less numbers.. which is not exactly a balance issue in itself though, but rather something that I just had to point out. So that's the whole story here, as straight as it possibly could! No big deal, no complaints It's simply just a humble viewpoint...

The Schreck penetrates a Pershing pretty much as good as the M6A3c bazooka penetrates Tank IV H/J with skirts.

Schreck vs Jumbo is as good as Bazooka M6A3C vs Tiger. The Panther with skirts is harder to penetrate. Schreck has at least 50% pen vs any allied tank except SP with 35%.

Zook with M6A3C has less than 50% pen vs everything that comes after tigers. And 10% vs the heaviest axis tanks. I think from 10%to 50% is a huge difference. The schreck struggles far less vs the heaviest allied tanks as the zooks does against most common axis tanks. Just that schrecks are everywhere, M6A3C bazooka just in inf and AB doc and in AB and RAF just with a single squad available.

So that schreck suffers vs allied heavies like zooks does vs axis is wrong. And that M6A3C are more common than schrecks is also a huge myth.

Regarding damage: Yes, schreck can fail to kill a vehicle. Schreck has 90-120 damage. Trigger less than 105 and a vehicle can survive. But you have a lot of space upwards in terms of damage. Zooks have 70-100 damage. That basically says that you cant even trigger enough damage to instant blow up a vehicle.

So for schrecks it can happen that vehicle survives when you trigger less than half of the maximum possible damage. With zook you can trigger any possible damage and you wont kill a vehicle or only with some of these ingame insta kill luck shots.

In this game vantury was just super unlucky twice. Ive seen it like once a year that a not overrepaired HT survived a schreck.

@devs: Can you fix some hendheld AT stats? Currently the M6A3C zooks penetrates churchills with like 100% chance. Both of them. Schreck is far from that.